The court upheld the validity of prior partition proceedings and the rightful possession of the plaintiff, confirming injunction against the appellant's interference.

JUDGMENT :

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide which order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Rohtak has been set aside and application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present revision petition are that the respondents/plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of injunction alleging that he was co-sharer of agricultural land as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. Hari Om and others including present defendant filed case No.27NT/Partition on 15.04.2009 for partition of said agricultural land against Smt. Shakuntla and others including the present plaintiff and other co-sharers. Partition proceedings were decided by the Assistant Collector II Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Rohtak vide order dated 31.01.2023 and Sanad Taksim was accordingly approved. Plaintiff was allotted Khasra/Killa No.21/21/2(0-4), 26/1 (7-12), 2 (7-11), 8/2/1(6-4), 63/7/1 (7-4), 8/2 (4-13) total land measuring 33 kanal 8 marlas in the aforesaid partition proceedings and none of the parties to the said proceedings filed any appeal against the said partition proceedings. Actual physical possession of respective khasra/killa numbers was allotted to them in the partition proceedings on 23.06.2023 and rapat No.408 regarding kabza karyawahi was entered in the rapat roznamacha by the Halqa Patwari. Mutation of aforesaid partition proceedings was also entered on 30.06.2023 vide mutation No.3847 which was sanctioned by AC II Grade, Rohtak on 05.07.2023. It has been alleged that defendant has evil eyes on the agricultural land of the plaintiff and by taking undue advantage of the fact that the agricultural land is an open tract of land and is neither bounded nor secured in any other manner, defendant attempted to take possession of khasra/killa No.26/1 and had planted rice crop on some part in the absence of the plaintiff. Then defendant apologized and made the excuse that he had planted rice crop in some part of khasra No.26/1 thinking it to be khasra/killa No.25 and matter was not proceeded further. It is alleged that defendant has still evil eyes on the agricultural land allotted to the plaintiff in above mentioned partition proceedings and he can destroy the crops of the plaintiff at any time and can also make effort to forcibly occupy the land of the plaintiff.

3. Notice of the said suit was issued to the defendant/respondent, who appeared and filed written statement alleging that partition proceedings have not been finalized as yet and revision against order dated 31.01.2023 is pending before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division. Petitioner has purchased land of killa No.26/1 vide sale deed No.1505 dated 05.06.2001 and since then he is in physical possession and laid pipe line and spent Rs.4,00,000/- thereon. It was also alleged that revision against Sanad Taksim was pending and it had been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the parties.

4. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over killa No.26/1. Vide order dated 27.10.2023 of the learned trial Court, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding killa No.26/1 till final decision of the case. Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal challenging order dated 27.10.2023 before learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and vide order dated 05.12.2024, the appeal as well as application for stay filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed and the order dat